Should I stop baiting some neo-Darwinists on NS301

[Xru]

I find myself habitually going to the NS301 area just looking to drop a hook to some neo-Darwinist and reel them in. Its unimaginably easy. They are incrediclby hypervigilent.

I can get the most incredibly hot flames in the matter of only one very innocent looking post. Like blood pressures must be 200/140. 'Course I don't mind the flames at all.

The bad part is I'm really starting to enjoy it.

Is this wrong? Is this Sinful.

[rogue06]

The way I see it your actions are very similar to someone walking up to a bunch of pilots and flight engineers and telling them they're all wrong, it's only a theory (theory of aerodynamics) and is merely a bunch of speculation seeing that there is still a lot we don't know or understand about it. The likely result is you'll get booted in the butt especially if they take the time to answer some of your objections and you essentially just repeat yourself.

Further, it seems you are basically acknowledging that your intention is to pull some chains and rattle cages. If so then what difference is there from what you're doing and trolling?

Just my 2cents.png FWIW.

[Xru]

The way I see it your actions are very similar to someone walking up to a bunch of pilots and flight engineers and telling them they're all wrong, it's only a theory (theory of aerodynamics) and is merely a bunch of speculation seeing that there is still a lot we don't know or understand about it. The likely result is you'll get booted in the butt especially if they take the time to answer some of your objections and you essentially just repeat yourself.

Further, it seems you are basically acknowledging that your intention is to pull some chains and rattle cages. If so then what difference is there from what you're doing and trolling?

Just my 2cents.png FWIW.

Point well taken. I've kept enough self-control to avoid intentionally provoking . . . and I don't want to be a Troll.

Take the following exchange for example:
Originally posted by semar_mendem Hi all,
I have a basic question about the radioactive dating, particularly in contrast to C14/carbon dating.
Carbon dating is proven when it correctly estimate the age of wood from a barge and the age of the barge is known from other documents.
Was there similar proof for radioactive dating, which often has millions of years of half-life?

Isn't this whole dating depends on knowing the original amount of radioactive material to begin with? How could we know for sure that the rock/fossil/etc. has the same amount of Potassium-40 a billion years ago compared to now?

If the composition of the elements was different back then, wouldn't it meant that the dating could be wrong (either too old or too young)?
Seems like you got some sensible answers to your question . . .

However, I'd encourage you to examin the assumptions behind any dating method whether radioactive decay, tree rings, or mud deposits. I always find it astonishing that people talk about making assumtions about conditions 13 billion years ago. But I'm a skeptic and sometimes think I'm a nihilist in certain ways. I guess that's my bias.

That is not a popular position around NS301, he he.

Originally posted by TDurden527 Seems like you got some sensible answers to your question . . .

However, I'd encourage you to examin the assumptions behind any dating method whether radioactive decay, tree rings, or mud deposits. I always find it astonishing that people talk about making assumtions about conditions 13 billion years ago. But I'm a skeptic and sometimes think I'm a nihilist in certain ways. I guess that's my bias.

That is not a popular position around NS301, he he.
It's not a popular position anywhere, save perhaps an insane asylum. Since according to an (epistemic) nihilist, one can know nothing about anything.

Re: Radioactive vs. carbon dating

Jump to Post
Originally posted by TDurden527
Seems like you got some sensible answers to your question . . .

However, I'd encourage you to examin the assumptions behind any dating method whether radioactive decay, tree rings, or mud deposits. I always find it astonishing that people talk about making assumtions about conditions 13 billion years ago. But I'm a skeptic and sometimes think I'm a nihilist in certain ways. I guess that's my bias.

That is not a popular position around NS301, he he.

It sounds like you are skeptical about the laws of nature being uniform over time. Is your objection based on science or religious belief?

Based on the evidence in the geologic record there is no reason to doubt this.

Actually, my dating of the earth is based primarily on stratigraphy, which in many places on earth there exists a complete uninterrupted geologic column that extends billions of years

shunyadragon's post was extremely reasonable but as so often happens, my answer to rogero spilled over onto shunyadragon. I think I'll PM him as apologize.

As I think is plain from my post above I was just making a reasonable suggestion in regards to sound understanding of theory. Judge for yourself.

I don't go to NS301 looking for a fight, but they seem to break out anyway. The baiting starts after the fight starts and I'm just reacting in kind which is probably not really smart but I get real tired of flames traveling only one way and that happens a lot on NS301.

Anyway, thank you for your perspective. That helps.

PS one looking back on my original post . . . seems I overstated it and I didn't communicate really well.

[rogue06]

I don't go to NS301 looking for a fight, but they seem to break out anyway.

There are some folks there with chips on their shoulders and others who just tend to jump the gun assuming that they're about to hear a bunch of PRATTs and seek to nip it before it starts. In such an environment accusations start to fly rather quickly. IMHO, while Nat Sci has always been a bit rough and tumble it seems to have degenerated into a lot more name calling as of late (and I don't completely exempt myself from that either).

[Azhar]

You do it to feel superior...it's normal for human beings. That's why the Internet is full of people bickering and telling each other that they are wrong.

"Xru Lord of the Highlands"

"Xru Commands it!"

".....just looking to drop a hook to some neo-Darwinist and reel them in. Its unimaginably easy."

You are, of course, presuming that you are right......whereas common sense points to the fact that the evolutionists are correct about evolution....and carbon dating

I think vanity is sinful and will certainly lead to sinful behaviour. It's best to watch your behaviour as it happens. There are plenty of us who believe in God and Evolution as a tool of God. I don't have a problem with creationists or Atheists believing what they believe but I think both should put their angry efforts in to helping the homeless and the needy.

I had a look at that thread and you were not reeling them in, they were walking all over you without even trying.

This week "Mr. Durden", you have a homework assignment. You're going to start a fight with a much weaker stranger and deliberately lose.